Re: [patch tree-optimization]: Fix for PR 45397 part 1 of 2

[Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>]

2012/3/15 Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote
>> Hi,
>>
>> The solution for this PR is a mix out of different issues. ?First is
>> of course the type-hoisting, but also
>> it shows some lacks in simplifications on integer-values, and on equal
>> and none-equal
>> comparisons.
>> The first patch adds to forward-propagation the ability to do type-hoisting
>> for some conversion operations and do simplification for inner binary
>> operations on it.
>> Most important part is here the adjustment of constant integer-values
>> in statement-lists
>> for a truncation.
>> I limited that patch to handle in compare_equal_optimize_1 only
>> bitwise-and operations
>> inner a truncation-cast. ?Of course for bitwise-xor/or operations some
>> more simplifications
>> are possible.
>> This patch just does the type-hoisting part. ?In a second patch I add
>> to compare_equal_optimize_1
>> the ability for further required simplifications for fixing this problem.
>
> This looks like to match unbound pattern sizes and thus does not fit
> into the forwprop machinery. ?Instead it was suggested elsewhere
> that promoting / demoting registers should be done in a separate pass
> where you can compute a lattice of used bits and apply a transform
> based on that lattice and target information (according to PROMOTE_MODE
> for example).
>
> Richard.

Well, the integer truncation part might be something for a separate
pass.  It could then also take care that within single-use
gimple-statements the integral-constant is always on right-hand-side
of first statement of an +, -, |, ^, &, and mul.

But the cast-hoisting code itself is not unbound AFAICS and has fixed
pattern size.

Regards,
Kai